Greater nuance in the first 100 new Ofsted reports published is welcome, but the new framework’s hardly the fairer grading system promised, says David Scott
Reports are now out on the 100 schools which volunteered to be inspected first under Ofsted’s new framework. Some 659 grades have been awarded.
Four per cent of grades awarded since November are ‘exceptional’, mostly issued to secondary schools. Secondaries made up a quarter of those inspected, with 69 primaries and six special schools. Overall, thirty-five per cent are ‘strong standard’, 56 per cent ‘expected standard’ and 5 per cent ‘needs attention’.
No volunteer schools have yet received an ‘urgent improvement’ grade. One recent report for a ‘non-volunteer’ school, inspected because of concerns, shows us what the lowest end of the grading spectrum looks like on paper, though.
While overall grades have been scrapped, it is usually obvious where the balance lies from a quick calculation of the individual evaluation area grades.
Are inspectors playing it safe?
The neutral option of a five-point scale or any odd number can lead to inspectors playing it safe.
It is unsurprising therefore that the third, middle grade is the one used most frequently in this analysis, at well over half. It also has the highest distribution of the same grade across all evaluation areas per school.
Ofsted claims ‘expected standard’ signifies a “high-performing school doing everything it should”.
On current trends, thousands of schools currently rated ‘good’ are likely to fall into this category. It won’t please them. According to Ofsted’s rubric, the next grade up, ‘strong standard’, marks out “excellent, consistent work that’s making a real difference for children and learners”.
Given that schools strive to be the best they can be, those with the lower ‘expected standard’ grade will be disappointed at the idea they are failing to make a real difference.
Considering that ‘expected standard’ is a “high bar”, a surprising range of criticism also appears in reports at this grade.
Meanwhile previously exempt ‘outstanding’ infant and first schools, already systematically downgraded four years ago when the exemption was lifted, will feel particularly aggrieved if they drop down two grades in four years.
Hardly the fairer grading promised
Whatever spin put on it, this is hardly the fairer grading claimed by the watchdog.
The better news is that report cards are more “granular” and “nuanced”, as promised. They are informative and well-written, despite the occasional propensity to cut and paste text.
Renewed emphasis on pupils’ achievements is welcome, notably the use of published outcomes, attainment data and comparisons with national averages.
Inclusion is another new, discrete, expansive evaluation area which many schools will appreciate.
The schools in the pilot were inspected solely by professional inspectors. These inspections are reported to have been well received and conducted appropriately.
Yet there are only 277 full-time staff, when more than 20,000 schools need inspecting every four years.
The big question is, how will standards be sustained when 1,000 freelance inspectors join inspection teams?
The training implications for freelance inspectors are challenging but crucial in the next phase. Therefore the jury is still out on how inspections are conducted, an area where reform is most needed.
Inspections must be humane
The reality is that inspections will continue to be high stakes. They carry the same risks as they did before, despite the new clarity around judging safeguarding.
We cannot forget reforms were prompted by the death of headteacher Ruth Perry. A coroner said that at times, the inspection of her school was “rude and intimidating”, lacking “fairness, respect and sensitivity”. Ofsted must above all prioritise the safety of staff and children.
Inspections must be more honest, humane, accurate and considerate. Opinions will differ regarding the content, pros and cons of the new grades and report cards. However, a consistently high conduct of inspections is non-negotiable.
Despite Ofsted’s grandiose claims, it is dedicated staff and leaders who are at the front line of “improving lives” and “raising standards” every day, not the watchdog.
They deserve unwavering support, maximum encouragement, recognition
Your thoughts